Hinkley Point

This stands out as particularly mad in a year of total madness. The augmentation of the unofficial policy that sees UK citizens subsidising government spending in Europe is only the most ironic part...

As I say, there's a whole lot of competition this year! The fact EDF and Areva are both under multiple investigations for financial and safety irregularities just caps this one off. On the upside, if there were ever to be a sequel to Edge of Darkness, this would be the moment.

Seems strange that so soon after the Fukushima disaster, the UK government would be pushing so strongly towards nuclear power anyways (not even thinking about the insanity of the particular plan that has been chosen). Although Chernobyl didn't prevent the UK moving to 25% nuclear power in the mid 90s, from what I just read, so maybe not that strange.

Seems strange that so soon after the Fukushima disaster, the UK government would be pushing so strongly towards nuclear power anyways (not even thinking about the insanity of the particular plan that has been chosen). Although Chernobyl didn't prevent the UK moving to 25% nuclear power in the mid 90s, from what I just read, so maybe not that strange.

Chernobyl happened as a result of mismanagement (officials insisted a planned experiment take place despite scientists and engineers warning it was unsafe) and Fukushima happened as a result of a tsunami - not generally a problem in Somerset - and obsolete reactor design (another, much more modern plant 25 miles down the coast suffered minimal damage).

Really the risk of accidents is greatly exaggerated in the public mind. Some people think that accidents are inevitable or 'only a matter of time' but if that were the case, France would be uninhabitable radioactive wasteland.

That's not to say that some designs aren't safer than others, of course.

Thorium cycle or whatever Monbiot was on about on Today this morning - integrated reactors that could 'burn' all the fuel and bomb bits lying around in Sellafield for the next 500 years. Why are we not building those? China is planning too.

Thorium cycle or whatever Monbiot was on about on Today this morning - integrated reactors that could 'burn' all the fuel and bomb bits lying around in Sellafield for the next 500 years. Why are we not building those? China is planning too.

Fuck knows. It's depressing to think how many of these sorts of schemes are perfectly viable from a scientific and technical (and potentially even economic) POV but get blocked because it's less effort just to carry on as usual.

Regarding Hinkley in particular, it does seem like the government declares its hands tied when thousands of jobs are at stake in precarious UK industry but has unlimited billions of public money available to prop up mismanaged projects involving foreign-owned firms.

Chernobyl happened as a result of mismanagement (officials insisted a planned experiment take place despite scientists and engineers warning it was unsafe) and Fukushima happened as a result of a tsunami - not generally a problem in Somerset - and obsolete reactor design (another, much more modern plant 25 miles down the coast suffered minimal damage).

Really the risk of accidents is greatly exaggerated in the public mind. Some people think that accidents are inevitable or 'only a matter of time' but if that were the case, France would be uninhabitable radioactive wasteland.

That's not to say that some designs aren't safer than others, of course.

Fair enough, that makes sense. Then the problem is 'merely' that the firm making the reactor in this case is under continuing investigation for their safety practices.

Many have described France as an uninhabitable radioactive wasteland though.